M. Rodrigo Magalhães^[1], Pedro Sousa¹, José Tribolet¹  

rmagalhaes@ceo.inesc.pt, pedro.sousa@link.pt, jose.tribolet@inesc.pt

Abstract. This paper is about a partnership between two disciplines: organizational studies and information systems engineering. It is argued that organizational studies has much to benefit from the conceptual development that has been taking place in the representation of organizational processes and enterprise architectures (EA) and that systems engineering can greatly expand its execution capability by absorbing a variety of messages coming from social or organizational theory. The concept of Organizational Self-Awareness (OSA) is offered as the contextual framework for the discussion. OSA is a process which involves, firstly, the efforts of the individual organizational member in getting to know his/her work environment, through sensemaking. Sensemaking is influenced by a number of factors, some related to the individual’s psychological makeup, others related to the individual’s work environment. EAs can play a relevant role in sensemaking. From activity theory the paper highlights the process of consciousness formation in human beings as well as the mediating artefacts that shape and constrain the acquisition, accumulation and development of knowledge and self-knowledge. Among the many mediating artefacts in the work environment EAs are a special type. EAs are also boundary objects due to their distinctive ability to influence perspective making and perspective taking in the process of organizational sensemaking. The paper concludes that the design and use of EAs can play a crucial role in the formation of a collective mind about the state of the organizational processes and therefore about the state of the organization.

Keywords: Organizational Design and Engineering (ODE); Enterprise Architectures (EA); Business Processes, Organizational Self-Awareness (OSA), Sensemaking, Structuration, Organizational Constructionism, Autopoiesis, Organizational Intelligence, Organizational Complexity.

Resumo. Este artigo foca a parceria entre duas áreas disciplinares: a dos estudos organizacionais e a da engenharia dos sistemas de informação. Argumenta-se que os estudos organizacionais têm muito a ganhar com os desenvolvimentos conceptuais decorrentes da representação dos processos organizacionais e das arquitecturas empresariais (AE) e que a engenharia dos sistemas pode aumentar significativamente a sua capacidade de execução se absorver a variedade de mensagens emanadas pelas teorias sociais e organizacionais. O conceito de Consciência Organizacional - (CO) - é proposto como o enquadramento contextual adequado para a discussão. A CO resulta de um processo que envolve, em primeiro lugar, os esforços de cada membro individual de uma organização em conhecer a sua envolvente, usando os seus sentidos e o seu “sensemaking”. Esta capacidade pessoal de apreender e compreender o meio ambiente é influenciada por vários factores, uns relacionados com o perfil psicológico de cada indivíduo, outros relacionados com o ambiente de trabalho individual. As AEs podem desempenhar um papel muito relevante no suporte à capacidade individual de “sensemakig”. Partindo da “Activity Theory” este artigo enfatiza o processo de formação de consciência nos seres humanos, bem como o papel dos artefactos que medeiam, conformam e restringem a aquisição, acumulação e desenvolvimento do conhecimento e do autoconhecimento. Entre os múltiplos artefactos que medeiam o ambiente de trabalho, as AEs constituem uma classe à parte. As AEs são objectos fronteiriços (boundary objects) dada a sua capacidade diferenciadora de influenciar a formação de perspectivas do meio ambiente por parte dos indivíduos, e consequentemente de condicionar as perspectivas que estão na base dos processos de formação da consciência colectiva sobre uma dada organização, que designamos por “organizational sensemaking”. O artigo conclui que o desenho e o uso das AEs podem desempenhar um papel relevante na formação da consciência colectiva sobre o estado dos processos organizacionais e em última análise, sobre o estado presente da própria organização, como um todo.

Texto completo disponível apenas em PDF.

Full text only available in PDF format.

References

Ambler, S. W., Nalbone, J. and Vizdos, M. (2005). Enterprise Unified Process: Extending the Rational Unified Process. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ        [ Links ]

Bechky, S. R. (2003). “Object Lessons: workplace artefacts as representations of occupational jurisdiction”. American Journal of Sociology, 109 (3): 720-752

Bohm, D. (2004). On Dialogue. Routledge, London

Boland, R. J.; Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). “Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of Knowing”. Organization Science, 6 (4): 350-372

Brown, S. L.; Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). “The Art of Continuous Change: linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (1): 1-34

Cacciatori, E. (2006). Crafting Competencies for Strategic Renewal: the role of boundary objects. Bocconi Working Paper. Bocconi School of Management, Bocconi University, Milano, Italy

Carlile, P. R. (2004). “Transferring, Translating and Transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries”. Organization Science, 15 (5): 555-568

Chan, Y. E. (2002). “Why Haven´t We Mastered Alignment? The Importance of Informal Organizational Structure”. MIS Quarterly Executive, 1 (2): 97-112

Concise Oxford English Diccionary (2006). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

Crossan, M.; Cunha, M. P.; Vera, D.; Cunha, J. (2005). “Time and Organizational Improvisation”. Academy of Management Review, 30 (1): 129-145

Davenport, T.H. (1994). "Reengineering: Business Change of Mythic Proportions?" MIS Quarterly, July: 121-127.

Davenport, T.H.; Beers, M.C. (1995). "Managing Information About Processes," Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(1): 57-80.

Davenport, T.H. & Short, J.E. (1990). "The New Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and Business Process Redesign," Sloan Management Review, Summer: 11-27.

Eisenhardt, K. M.; Martin, J. A. (2000). “Dynamic Capabilities: what are they?” Strategic Management Journal, 21: 1105-1121

Engeström, Y.; Miettinen, R.; Punamäki, R.L. (2005). Perspectives on Activity Theory. N. York, Cambride University Press

Foster, I. (2006). “Computer Commentary”. Nature, vol. 440 (23 March): 419

Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK

Goedvolk, J., De Bruin, H. and Rijsenbrij, D. (1999). “Integrated Architectural Design of Business and Information Systems”, Proceedings of the Second Nordic Workshop on Software Architecture (NOSA'99), Ronneby, Sweden

Grover, V., Jeong, S.R., Kettinger, W.J.; Teng, J.T.C. (1995). "The Implementation of Business Process Reengineering," Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(1): 109-144.

Hammer, M. (1990). "Reengineering Work: Don't Automate, Obliterate," Harvard Business Review, July-August: 104-112

Hoogervorst, J.; Koopman, P. L.; Van Der Flier, H. (2002). “Human Resource Strategy for the New ICT-Driven Business Context”. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13 (8): 1245-1265

ISO (1995). ISO/IEC 10746 ODP Reference Model. International Standards Organization.

Kallinikos, J. (2004). “Farewell to Constructivim: technology and context-embedded action”, in C. Avgerou, C. Ciborra, F. Land (eds), The Social Study of Information and Communication Technologies. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Kogut, B. (2000). “The Network as Knowledge: generative rules and the emergence of structure”. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (3): 405-425

Kogut, B.;Zander, U. (1992). “Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities and the Replication of Technology”. Organization Science, 3 (3): 383-397

Kruchten P. (2003). The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

Labovitz, G.; Rosansky, V. (Ed.) (1997). Power of Alignment: How Great Companies Stay Centered and Accomplish Extraordinary Things. John Wiley, New York

Lamb, R.; Kling, R. (2003). “Reconceptualizing Users as Social Actors in Information Systems Research”. MIS Quarterly, 27 (2): 197-235

Laudon, K.; Laudon, J. (2000). Management Information Systems. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Levina, N.; Vaast, E.. (2005). “The Emergence of Boundary Spanning Competence in Practice: implications for implementation and use of information systems”. MIS Quarterly, 29 (2): 335-363.

Lewin, A. Y.; Long, C.P.; Carroll, T.N. (1999). “The Coevolution of New Organizational Forms”. Organization Science, 10 (5): 535-550

Lewin, A. Y.; Volberda, H. W. (1999). “Prolegomena on Coevolution: a framework for research on strategy and new organizational forms”. Organization Science, 10 (5): 519-534

Lindgren, R.; Henfridsson, O.; Schultz, U. (2004). “Design Principles for Competence Management Systems: a synthesis of an action research study”. MIS Quarterly, 28 (3): 435-472

Malone, T.W.; Crowston, K.; Herman, G. A. (Eds) (2003). Organizing Business Knowledge: the MIT Process Handbook. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

March, J. G. (1999). The Pursuit of Organizational Intelligence. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers

Maturana, H. (1988). “Reality: the search for objectivity or the quest for a compelling argument.” Irish Journal of Psychology, 9 (1): 25-82.

Maturana, H.R. and Varela, F.J. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: the realization of the living. D. Reidel Publishing, Dordrecht, Holland

Maturana, H.R. and Varela, F.J. (1987/1992). The Tree of Knowledge. Shambhala, Boston

McKelvey, B. (1999). “Complexity Theory in Organization Science: seizing the promise or becoming a fad?”. Emergence, 1 (1): 5-32

Nardi, B. (1996). Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

North, E., North, J. and Benade, S. (2004). “Information Management and Enterprise Architecture Planning: a juxtaposition”. Problems and Perspectives in Management (4), p. 166-179

OMG (2005). “Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, version 2.0”. Object Management Group. Retrieved December, 15 2005, from http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/2004-10-02

Orlikowski, W.J.; Yates, J. (2002). “It’s About Time: temporal structuring.” Organization Science, 13 (6): 684-700.

Pereira, C. ; Sousa, P. (2005). “Enterprise architecture: business and IT alignment” in H. Haddad, L. Liebrock, A. Omicini, R. Wainwright (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC), (pp. 1344-1345). Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.

Pereira, C.; Sousa, P. (2004). “A Method to Define an Enterprise Architecture using the Zachman Framework” in H. Haddad; A. Omicini; R. Wainwright; L. Liebrock (Eds.) Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC), (pp. 1366-1371). Nicosia, Cyprus.

Porter, M. (1985). Competitive Advantage. The Free Press, New York

Pawlowski, S. D.; Robey, D. (2004). “Bridging User Organizations: knowledge brokering and the work of information technology professionals”. MIS Quarterly, 28(4): 645-672

Smith, H.; Fingar, P. (2003). Business Process Management: The Third Wave. Meghan-Kiffer Press, Florida

Sousa, P.; Caetano, A.; Vasconcelos, A.; Pereira, C; Tribolet, J. (2006a). “Enterprise Architecture Modelling with the Unified Modelling Language 2.0”, in P. Ritten (ed) Enterprise Modelling and Computing with UML.  IRM Press, Hershey, PA

Sousa, P; Pereira, C; Vendeirinho, R; Caetano, A; Tribolet, J. (2006b) “Applying the Zachman Framework Dimensions to Support Business Process Modelling”.  Proceedings of the 3rd  International Conference on Digital Enterprise Technology, ,  Setúbal, Portugal, 2006.

Sowa, J.; Zachman, J. (1992). “Extending and formalizing the framework for information systems architecture”. IBM Systems Journal, 31: 590-616.

Star, S. L. (1989). “The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: boundary objects and heterogenous distributed problem solving” in M. Huhn; L. Gasser (eds), Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufman, Menlo Park, CA

Teece, D.J.; Pisano, G.; Shuen, A. (1997). “Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management”. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (7): 509-633

Tribolet, J. M. (2005). “Organizações, Pessoas, Processos e Conhecimento: da Reificação do Ser Humano como Componente do Conhecimento à “Consciência de Si” Organizacional” [Organizations, People, Processes and Knowledge: from the reification of the human being as a component of knowledge to the knowledge of organizational self] in L. Amaral, R. Magalhães, C. C. Morais, A. Serrano, C. Zorrinho (eds). Sistemas de Informação Organizacionais. Sílabo Editora, Lisboa, Portugal

Tsoukas, H. (2005) Complex Knowledge. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society: an outline of interpretive sociology. University of California Press, Berkley, CA

Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA

Weick, K.E. (2001). Making Sense of the Organization. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA

Weick, K.E.; Roberts, K.H. (1993). “Collective Minds in Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly (38:3), pp. 357-381.

Zachman, J. (1987). “A Framework for Information Systems Architecture”. IBM Systems Journal, 26 (3): 276-292.

^[1] Department of Information Systems and Computer Science, Instituto Superior Técnico, Technical University of Lisbon; Organizational Engineering Center, INESC, Portugal.